Replies

A farmer has a field that is infested with bugs.

The farmer sprays the field with a bug spray, and it seems to kill 80% of the bugs. The next year, tho, when he sprays, it only kills about 30% of the bugs. By the third year, the spray doesn't seem to affect the bugs hardly at all.

The bugs who survived the spraying pass the spray resistance down to their progeney, and the bug species has now 'evolved'.

The bugs have changed.

This type of thing happens all the time. Human's environment has provided them better nutrition, so humans have gotten taller, and bigger over the last hundred or so years. Humans have changed.

Are you suggesting you don't believe in this, which most Creationists/ID theorists call 'micro-evolution'?

If so, then all we can do is disagree.

If you *do* agree with this 'micro' evolution, as does medved and most of the creo/ID folks, then you agree with Darwin's theory, because that is all it says.

But they claim they don't agree with so-called 'macro' evolution, even tho the only difference is 'time'.

Because it is certain that millions of small changes over hundreds of millions of years equals big changes.

The origin of their claim is the 'young Earth' claim, that there hasn't been enough time on Earth for that to happen.

Again, I have no interest in disagreeing with such a claim. I find it fascinating Science Fiction, really fun stuff.

But the evidence says something very, very different, to me.

But they claim they don't agree with so-called 'macro' evolution, even tho the only difference is 'time'.

This statement simply has not been demonstrated, in experiment or in nature.

The bugs have changed.

The bugs more resistant have reproduced, but the bugs are the same. This is natural selection, a fact of nature. No morphing into something else. Others on this thread have also already pointed out that no new information has been or is being added.

You are claiming that natural selection=Darwinism=belief in evolution. This is you big point that you've been making, and therefore asserting that everyone is an evolutionist. This is not the case, for Darwin makes the jump from natural selection to evolution, which are not the same thing.

From Macro vs. Micro Evolution
by David Skjaerlund

"Charles Darwin sparked a revolution in scientific thought with the publication of his book, The Origin of Species, in 1859. With his concept of evolution by natural selection, Darwin attempted to render invalid the biblical idea that "every living thing produces life after its own kind."
In the first half of Species, Darwin cited evidence for "micro-evolution," or changes on a small level between species. His discovery of the several different types of finches on the Galapagos Islands with similar characteristics, derived from a common ancestor, comprised his evidence for micro-evolution. The 14 different species of finches vary according to plumage, size (from the size of a sparrow to that of a large blackbird), beak morphology, behavior and environmental habitat. They were each very different, yet closely related.

From this observation, Darwin then extrapolated his explanation for the origin of life forms from a common ancestor, or "macro-evolution." He used the evidence from the first half of his book on micro-evolution to suggest that the same mechanism could produce all life forms. However, this concept of macro-evolution is not supported by modern scientific evidence. Although we can explain and understand the mechanism behind micro-evolution, we still can only theorize about possible explanations for macro-evolution - since it has no scientifically valid occurrences."

So the evidence of the morphing process-macro evolution as it's called, is nil. With this morphing process happening "every day" as you claim, we should see fossil evidence of transitional species everywhere. We don't.

You can claim that natural selection=Darwinism, but it's not true. Darwin made the case for evolution and morphing, which isn't supported by the fossil record or demonstrated in nature.

These types of phenomena are well documented. One group has been tracking one such example for years - pesticide resistant mosquitoes. They observe that amplification of the gene encoding the esterase enzyme was the primary adaptation to the chemical in the wild. An increase in esterase levels is observed in the flies with gene amplification events. Conversely there is no increase in esterase expression in the absence of these events. This type of genetic change (duplication) is very common in bacteria under selective pressure and has also been observed in many other organisms (including human cells). The human genome appears to be a large collection of duplicated gene clusters.